


|| Did the Term “The Gospel” | 
Originate with Paul: 


By 
| Orville Anderson Petty 


nee BS2385 
2.P49 New Haven 


ly fc 


Library of The Theological Seminary 


PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY 


Cb 


PRESENTED BY 
Mrs. Orville Petty 


| = 








> ne 





ate 
aM 
AP i = 


at et ala 


Did the Christian Use of the Term 
TO evayyédov | 


Originate with Paul? 





Mn Essay By 
Orville Anderson Petty, Ph.D., D.D. 


New Haven 
1925 


PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


COPYRIGHT, 1925, 
By ORVILLE ANDERSON PETTY 


Norwood Jpress 
J.8,. Cushing Co. — Berwick & Smith Co, 
Norwoed, Mass., U.8.A. 


Did the Christian Use of the Term 73 ebayyéduop 
Originate with Paul? 


UR canonical Gospels do not individually carry the 
term TO evayyéAvov as a part of the title in the 
earliest Mss., unless the superscription “Apy7 Tod 

evayyeriov “Incod Xpiotov of Mark 1:1 is regarded as a 
secondary title under cata papxov. Even the briefer form 
of these titles (superscriptions and over the pages) as cata 
pabGaiov (the cata implying comparison ), for example, was 
an addition in each case to the original autograph. Codex 
Sinaiticus has this shorter subscription (first of Matthew 
missing) where Codex Alexandrinus has the subscription 
evayyédtov kata pabbaiov. An examination of the oldest 
manuscripts reveals the fact that even the shorter titles, 
kata pabbaiov, cata papKov, etc., have been added since 
these manuscripts were made. We find evayyéda as ap- 
plied to our Four Gospels for the first time in Justin 
Martyr (First Apology, chapter 66). Eusebius is the first 
writer to mention the Diatessaron of Tatian (H E IV. 36). 
It is probable, though not certain, that the original title 
(Greek (?) or Syriac) stood, ‘“*The Gospel of Jesus Christ 
by means of the Four.” (CEvayyédov *Incod Xpictod 76 
dia tecodpwv.) The work is generally cited, however, by 
the shorter title, “Diatessaron” (in Syriac). In the 
Didache, “according to the decree of the gospel” (XI: 3), 
‘tas ye have it in the gospel” (XV:38) and “as ye have it 
in the gospel of our Lord” (XV:4) probably refer to a 
written source. When these stories of Jesus (our canon- 
ical Gospels) were written 76 evayyéAtov had not yet been 
extended to mean a writing,— unless the superscription, 
Mark 1:1, may be so regarded. Do the New Testament 
1 


2 DID TO evayyédLov 


writings in the body of the teat indicate another type of ex- 
tension in the use of the term? When did the term “the 
gospel” arise and what steps are revealed in its employ- 
ment by New Testament writers? 

The term 76 evayyéAvov occurs frequently in Paul and 
“Pauline” letters but only in two Gospels and that spar- 
ingly. It is not found in Luke’s Gospel nor in John’s 
Gospel or Johannine epistles. It occurs twice in Acts and 
once in I Peter. Its occurrence in Matthew, Mark, Acts 
and Pauline Letters and I Peter (once without the definite 
article in the Apocalypse) covers New Testament usage. 
These facts are not without significance, especially when 
we are mindful of the influence of Paul on other New 
Testament writers, the anti-docetism of Johannine litera- 
ture and anirenic purpose in Acts. The question emerges, 
May not “the gospel” in origin, at least, be distinctively a 
Pauline term ? 

Certainly it is not an accident that this term is found in 
the four Gospels eleven times, in the Pauline letters sixty 
times and three times in all the rest of the New Testament. 
Neither is it accidental that we meet “the Kingdom” (7 
Baotrefa) one hundred and thirteen times in the Synop- 
tics (only nineteen of these in Mark), eight times in Acts 
and nine in Revelation, but only once in Romans, five 
times in I Corinthians (Judaizers active at Corinth), once 
in Galatians, a few times in other Pauline writings, and 
occasionally elsewhere in the New Testament. On the face 
of the returns is not “kingdom” Jewish and “ gospel” 
Gentilic? Doubtless Jesus and ‘the Twelve’ used the 
word “kingdom,” but did they use the term “the gospel” 
concerning his (own) message or mission? If not, where 
did the Gospel writers get it? Is it ‘apostolic’ or Pauline? 

Paul was the first of the New Testament. writers to use _ 
“the gospel.”? In Galatians or I Thessalonians, it occurs 
for the first time in New Testament literature. All of 
Paul’s letters were written before our canonical Gospels 
appeared. Where did Paul get the term, — from Christian 


ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 3 


tradition, or from Deutero-Isaiah? He refers to both in 
his letters. In I Cor. 11: 23, he affirms that he learned of 
the authorization of the Eucharist and Jesus’ words con- 
cerning its symbolism from Jesus himself by historical 
tradition (7apéXafov). In I Cor. 15:38 ff. he informs his 
readers that he “received,” also by historical tradition, the 
story of Jesus’ sacrificial death according to the scriptures 
and of his resurrection, and that he was seen by many. It 
should be noted that Paul is here in verse 38 ff. speaking of 
the story of the death and especially of the resurrection 
and appearance of Jesus. He is careful not to say, “I re- 
ceived” (mapédaPov) “the gospel,’ although he has just 
reminded his readers in verses 1 and 2 that they received 
“the gospel” from him (7rapedafere). Verse 3 begins, 
‘First and foremost, I delivered to you what I had myself 
received, namely,’ —and then speaks of the death, burial 
and resurrection of Jesus, citing appearances and witnesses 
including last of all himself (wapédaxa yap bpiv év mpwros 
0 Kat TapéAaBov 6tt Xpiotos «.7.r.). That is, what he re- 
ceived is what follows, [namely] “that” (67-), — historical 
data about Christ’s death, resurrection and appearance to 
witnesses among which he classes himself (v. 8) (€syarTov 
dé mdvtwv worrepel TO ExTpOpaTt WhOn Ka’ poi). Here he 
uses the same verb (#67) as when he speaks of Jesus’ 
appearance to Peter (v. 5) and to James (v.7). The yap 
in verse three reaches back to the clauses of verses one and 
two where he reminds them that they “received” the “gos- 
pel,” but the 6 in the clause 6 «ai mapédaBovp refers to ért 
Xpistos «.7.rX. The use of xnpvoow in close proximity in 
verses eleven and twelve ovtws xnptacopuev (v.11) Ex dé 
Xpioros xnpvocetat (v. 12) is confirmatory; he uses To 
evayyéAvov and evaryyeAtCowar in verses one and two, but 
not again, as we would expect, in verses eleven and twelve, 
if he had there been speaking of “the gospel” instead of 
the resurrection itself. The subject of the chapter is the 
resurrection. Of course, this human testimony about 
Jesus has significance in respect to “the gospel,” is indeed 


4 DID TO evaryyéXLov 


a historical prerequisite and also a conditional part of it, 
but this must not lead us to ignore the intent of Paul’s 
phrase 6 cal mapéAaBov btt Xpiotos «.t.r. If we com- 
pare I Cor. 11: 23 the same grammatical structure obtains, 
where the yap does not bind the clause to ris exxAnotas 
in verse 22 and where the 6 in the clause 6 xal trapédwxa 
refers to what follows — 6rTe xvpios x.7.rX. We would not 
expect him to contradict his statement in Gal. 1:12. In 
Gal. 1:11, 12 he assures the Galatian churches, (under self- 
imposed oath) that he did not ‘receive’ ‘the gospel” (70 
evayyéAtov Td evayyedtcOev wn’ ewov) by tradition, but 
through a‘direct revelation ;)(ovde yap éyo mapa avOpwrrov 
mrapéXaBov avto ovte ediddyOnv, AAdAG K.T.r.). These are 
the only instances (three) in his writings where he em- 
ploys the phrase “I received” (vapéAaBov). ‘That Paul 
was familiar with the words, deeds and spirit of Jesus 
through oral tradition is patent in the Pauline letters. 
Chom. oT s-Peor-o514, Phu 25 i>) that henela 
that he did not receive “the gospel,’ which he preached, 
in a similar manner is explicitly stated in Galatians; we 
need only to read Galatians 1:11-2:10 on this point. 
Fourteen years after his first visit (following his conver- 
sion and subsequent period probably of deep meditation in 
Arabia, and then his trip to Jerusalem for the first time to 
get acquainted with Peter), when he went up again to 
Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus for a private audience 
with the “pillars” to make ‘liberty in Christ’ more secure 
for his converts, these authorities had ‘no additions to 
make.” It is true that he says in this connection, I was 
entrusted with “ the gospel of uncircumcision as Peter (the 
message (?) of circumcision,” but these are geographical 
genitives, for when taken with what follows it is evident 
that they indicate chiefly to whom their messages are to go. 
It is clear from Gal. 1:6 where he is amazed that they 
should turn away to a “different” (érepov) gospel, which 
is not a “second” (ado), and also from the pungent irony 
in II Cor.11:4 where he refers to a “second Jesus,” a 


ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 5 


“different spirit” and a “different gospel,” that Paul did 
not believe in two gospels! He speaks of “my gospel” 
and “our gospel,” but there 7s none other. ‘This only I 
wish to find out from you. Did you receive the spirit 
from works of law, or from hearing of faith?” At Antioch 
Paul withstood Peter face to face “because he was not 
going straight according to the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 
2:11, 14). Commenting on the principle involved, he 
says (2: 21), “If righteousness is through law, then Christ 
died needlessly.” Romans, which is a treatise written as 
an exposition of “the gospel,” is specific on this point. 
For example, Rom. 3: 21, “We now have a righteousness 
of God disclosed apart (ywpis) from law altogether.” 
Rom. 4:16, “All depends upon faith,’ (Ara totto é« 
miotews). Rom. 10:4, ‘*Now Christ is an end to law so 
as to let every believer have righteousness.” Rom. 9: 32, 
“Tsrael who aimed at the law of righteousness have failed 
simply because they relied not on farth, but on what they 
could do” (6tt ov &éx miatews AXN ws €F& Epywv). 

For Paul there is no alternative. It is law or “liberty 
in Christ.” ‘There is no middle ground, no substitute. 
Compromise means slavery, — hopeless slavery to rules; 
and law has failed while “the gospel” succeeds. 

Since the Petrine tradition (either oral or written, or 
both) woven into the early chapters of Acts does not con- 
tain the term “the gospel” and yet reflects the ‘apostolic’ 
mind concerning the meaning of the death and resurrection 
of Jesus, —‘*made both Lord and Christ” and concerning 
“the gift of the holy spirit,” —the question becomes in- 
sistent, Was the term “the gospel” current before Paul 
or later apart from the influence of its use by Paul? 

Certain words and works ascribed to the ‘apostles’ and 
Paul are reported in Acts where “the gospel” is once put 
into the mouth of Peter and once falls from the lips of 
Paul. It occurs first in 15:7 where the author tells us 
that he is reporting the Council at Jerusalem called to 
settle a sharp dispute and controversy between Paul and 


6 DID 70 evayyéAtov 


the Judaizers. In this context Peter, addressing apostles 
and elders, claims to have been divinely selected from the 
earliest days as the first apostle to the Gentiles. The sec- 
ond and last occurrence of the term is in 20: 24 where at 
Miletus Paul is giving a farewell address to the elders 
from Ephesus when he was on his way to Jerusalem for 
the last time. In both instances it appears against the 
deep but distinct background of Paul’s message to the 
Gentiles and opposition to him. In the whole of Acts 
Peter uses the term, but only once, and then in a setting at 
Jerusalem contrary to fact, and Paul uses it, — also only 
once, when he is bound for Jerusalem to defend his message 
to the Gentiles, — although many addresses are ascribed 
to both Peter and Paul and their labors as preachers re- 
corded. The term does not appear in the Petrine source 
embedded in the first section of Acts; neither is it em- 
ployed in the ‘we-sections’ source except in this compari- 
son where in summary Peter’s labors are set over against 
those of Paul. We know, however, that the author of the 
‘we-sections’ was probably a companion of Paul (possibly 
of Peter before or after) and that Paul at that time was, 
in his writings, using the term. 

The author of Acts, referring to his former treatise (Tov 
mp@Tov Adyov), says that he made it “concerning all that 
Jesus began to do and also to teach,” yet in that writing 
(the Third Gospel) he never uses 76 evayyéAtov. Had its 
use made for division? Had the “others” referred to in 
Luke 1:1 used it without historic perspective? Was it 
not “in order”? Or did he assiduously avozd its use in an 
attempt to harmonize Jewish and Gentile ‘Christianity’? 
In the preamble of his former treatise (Luke 1:2) why 
does he use “the word” (rod Adyov) instead of “the gospel” 
(Tov evayyedtov)? In his vocabulary was ‘the gospel” 
more specific than “the word”? In the body of this story 
why does he find a substitute where his source employs 76 
evayyeAtov, or avoid it? This seems to be deliberately 
done. In Mark 1:14,15 we find Jesus «nptcowr 70 evay- 


ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 7 


yéXwov Tov Geod, and saying muotevete ev THO evayyertw, but 
Luke writes instead in the parallel (4: 14, 15) that Jesus 
edidackev ev Tais cuvaywyais avTov. In Mark 8: 35 we read 
évexev EMov Kal Tov evayyeAlov, but in Luke évexev éuod, omit- 
ting the term “the gospel.” In Luke 18: 29 he deliber- 
ately substitutes évexev THs Bactretas tov Oeot for Mark’s 
(10:29) &vexev éuod nai Evexev Tov evayyeriov. When we 
compare Luke 21:12, 13 with its parallel, Mark 18: 9, 10, 
we see that Luke omits the whole sentence about univer- 
salism where 70 evayyéAvov occurs. Only a theological in- 
terest can account for this treatment of his source! He 
does not even substitute the cognate verb evayyerifw for 
TO evayyéAvov in any of these instances. Did the author 
of the Third Gospel know that ‘the gospel” was not used 
until Paul’s day and that the apostle to the Gentiles had 
made it an occasion of offense ? 

~ Perhaps Mark, ‘the oldest’ Gospel, may furnish light. 
The story in Mark comes from Peter but the interpretation 
comes from Paul. Mark’s Gospel is distinctly Pauline in 
doctrinal background. Besides its use as a title or super- 
scription in 1:1, the term “the gospel” occurs six or seven 
times (1:14, 15, 8:35, 10:29, 18:10, 14:9, [16:15]). 
In all instances, — except the first, — Jesus is represented 
as using the term. In 1:14, 15 the term is attached to Q 
as found in Matthew 10:7. When we compare Mark 
8:35 with Matthew 10: 39, we see that “the gospel” is an 
editorial addition. In Mark 10:29 we have the same 
phrase “the gospel’s sake” (évexev Tov evayyeriov), which 
is not found in the parallel Matt. 19:28 (nor Luke 22: 
28-30). In both cases in Mark where this addition ‘for 
the gospel’s sake” is made, Peter is being rebuked! In 
18:10, 14:9 [and 16:15] the author is under the spell of 
Paul’s universalism. Evidence that Mark’s use of ‘the 
gospel” is Petrine is entirely wanting, while the evi- 
dence of Pauline influence cannot be ignored. Concerning 
Jesus’ possible use of the term we must look to the second 
source(s) of Matthew and Luke. If Jesus used it, we 


8 DID TO evayyéAtov 


may hope to find it there. ‘The gospel” occurs four times 
in Matthew’s Gospel (4: 28, 9:35, 24:14, 26:13). But 
Matt. 4:23 ff. is part of an editorial summary based on 
Mark. In Matt. 9:35 the editor expands Mark 6: 68. 
Matt. 24:14 is based on Mark 18:10 and Matt. 26:18 on 
Mark 14:9. In no case then is 70 evayyéAtov in Matthew 
found in the teaching source. The term does not occur in 
Inuke. Matthew goes to Mark for the term and Mark _ 
goes to Paul for his theology. 

It remains to examine its use in I Peter, and in the 
Apocalypse, — where it appears without the definite article. 
The author of I Peter probably borrows many terms from 
Paul. If so, certainly it is not strange to find “the gospel 
of God” among the rest (4:19). So long at least as the 
question of dependence here is in dispute, I Peter 4:19 
may not be cited as dependable evidence that Peter used 
“the gospel” before and apart from Paul. The use of: 
“gospel” not “the gospel” (édayyéAtoy atwviov) in Rev. 
14:6 is not, at best, evidence of non-Pauline origin, since 
the author’s acquaintance with Matthew and Paul’s writ- 
ing is highly probable. 

Since this use of the term “the gospel” in Matthew with 
reserve, in Mark with interest, in Acts twice with balanced 
caution, in I Peter once only (and “gospel” once in the 
Apocalypse) yet in Pauline writings so liberally, its omis- 
sion from Hebrews and John’s Gospel, both of which show 
Pauline influence, invites further study. Theologically 
Hebrews lies between Paul and John. But Hebrews is 
addressed to Christians beset by Levitical pressure and 
Jesus is priest. John’s Gospel is based on the Pauline 
Gospel of Mark and meets the claim of the docetics who 
did not “know Christ after the flesh.” It is indisputably 
an apologetic interpretation. The institution of the Lord’s 
Supper accented by Paul is not included in John’s account 
of Jesus’ last evening with his disciples. John avoids 
giving any support to Paul’s docetic “friends.” The 
reason for James’ avoidance of the term is obvious to the 


ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 9 


reader. It is conceded that the argument from silence is 
precarious, except when an apologetic ‘ruse’ is apparent. 
Does not this exception obtain in the writings of Luke, 
John and others? 

The evidence so far would indicate that the assumption 
that Paul, in his employment of the term “the gospel,” 
followed an established Palestinian usage is beset with 
great difficulties. We turn to his correspondence for 
light. 

The tenth chapter of Romans may provide a clue, espe- 
cially when we are reminded that Romans is an explicit 
discussion of “the gospel,” and probably embodies the gist 
of sermons by Paul. In 10:15 Paul freely quotes the 
LXX of Deutero-Isaiah (52:7). The LXX runs, in part 
WS TrObES EVayyEALCOMEVOU aAKo?Y ELpHYNS wS Eevayyedttouevos 
aya0a and suggests T@ evayyeAtm of Rom. 10:16. Al- 
though the plural form only obtains in the LXX, it is 
always singular in Paul and the rest of the New Testa- 
ment. The joyful redeemed Jerusalem of Deutero-Isaiah 
is “our mother” of Gal. 4:26. As Paul wrote his alle- 
gory in Galatians where he quotes Deutero-Isaiah (54:1) 
did he have in mind 51: 1-12 where Sarah is mentioned 
and “gladness” and “salvation” and “the people in whose 
heart is my law”? It will be conceded that Paul’s theory 
of salvation embodies the idea of the ‘suffering Servant” 
in Deutero-Isaiah. May it not be that the glad tidings of 
deliverance proclaimed by the prophet provided the name 
for his message to the world? A decisive answer to this 
question cannot be given apart from a study of the cog- 
nate verb as used by New Testament writers. Does this 
verb as used in Acts rest on Petrine tradition? Since the 
term To evayyéAvov only occurs twice in Acts, what signifi- 
cance, if any, attaches to the use of the cognate verb 
evayyeAtCouat in the treatise? Is the author of Acts fac- 
tual or simply ‘truthful’ or something else, when he writes 
of the apostles, ‘those scattered abroad’ and Philip “ preach- 
ing the gospel” (evayyer(Coua 5:42, 8:4, 12, 25, 35, 40), 


10 DID TO evayyéALov 


before Paul becomes a factor in his story? Is it due to 
accident and literary skill or to the author’s irenic purpose 
that he never puts the cognate verb into the mouth of Paul 
(its use in 17: 18 is obviously editorial) except when Paul 
is associated with Barnabas (18: 82 and 14:15), and that 
he never uses it to describe Paul’s work, except when he is 
associated with others, especially with Barnabas? (14: 7, 
21, 15: 35 and 16:10 always in the plural). It is of in- 
terest in this connection that Paul is never called ‘an 
apostle’ or ‘the apostle’; and only twice, 14:4, 14, when 
his name is bracketed with Barnabas does he share with 
him the title ‘apostles.’ In Acts, the ninth chapter, Ana- 
nias is called by the Lord in a vision to tell the blinded 
Paul what he is to ‘suffer for the name’ (cf. 5: 41b) and 
that his mission is to be to the Gentiles. Paul immedi- 
ately in the synagogues “preached Jesus” (v. 20) (éxnpuc- 
aev tov ‘Incovv). Later he goes to Jerusalem (!) where 
he is favorably introduced by Barnabas and speaks and 
disputes (€AadXe TE Kal cuvefnret) with the Hellenists, who 
reject his message and seek his life. In the tenth chapter 
Peter is also enlightened by a vision, and in the presence 
of Cornelius and his company says in substance that God 
is not partial; he welcomes from all nations them who fear 
him and work righteousness (év wavti éOve .. . épyato- 
Kevos SiKatoovvnv) (vv. 3, 5), and affirms that God sent the 
message to the sons of Israel, “preaching (the gospel of) 
peace (evayyeArrSouevos eipjvnv) by Jesus Christ” (10: 36). 
Peter then goes to Jerusalem and wins over the circum- 
cision party (!). When Paul has a: vision he heralds 
(«xnptoow) and speaks (Aad€w) and disputes (cofnréw) but 
does not “preach the gospel” (evayyeAtfouar); but when 
Peter has a vision and a visitor he preaches (to the Gen- 
tiles) ‘the gospel of peace,’ quoting Deutero-Isaiah 52:7! 
Cf. Rom. 10:15,16. Three times in Acts the story is 
told of Paul’s vision and its meaning (Chaps. 9, 22, 27). 
In the last two instances Paul tells his own story. In the 
first case (Chap. 22) he has a trance while praying in the 


ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 11 


temple and sees the Lord who directs him to flee and go to 
the Gentiles. In the second case (Chap. 26) Paul tells 
Agrippa that he was not disobedient to the heavenly vision 
(vv. 20, 21),—‘“I announced (amnyyedXov) all over the 
land of Judea and to the Gentiles to repent and to turn to 
God doing works (épya mpdacortas) worthy (aa) of re- 
pentance!” (yetavoéw only occurs once in Paul, II Cor. 
12: 21, and its substantive only in Rom. 2:4 and II Cor. 
7:9, 10.) The cognate verb has not been used in the 
story (17:18 editorial) since Paul left Asia at Troas (re- 
corded in 16:10 where the “we-sections” began), nor is 
it used in the remaining chapters! Can this omission be 
accidental or for literary reasons? Is not the author a 
‘respecter of persons’? Theological convictions determine 
his vocabulary, cloud his perspective and condemn as to 
accuracy. 

What do we find when we study the use of the cognate 
verb as employed in the story as it touches the situation 
causing and in that growing out of Stephen’s appearance 
and its result? This term occurs for the first time in 5: 
42, where we read that the apostles, in the midst of per- 
secution ‘for the sake of the Name’ ceased not for a single 
day teaching and evayyerrSouevor tov Xpiotov “Inoody “in 
the temple and at home”’; and it was “during these days” 
that Stephen and Philip were chosen deacons and became 
‘evangelists.’ In the phrase “in the temple and at home” 
the author drops a hint of his theological interest and lit- 
erary direction. The apostles are being persecuted by the 
Sadducean party, and the Hellenists and the Hebrews dis- 
agree. ‘The author is preparing his readers for a ‘Jewish’ 
mission to the Gentiles. Gamaliel’s pragmatic advice 
looks forward (5:39). (Compare 1:8.) After Stephen 
has been stoned to sleep and Paul introduced as the arch 
persecutor, “Those, however, who were dispersed went 
through the land preaching (the gospel of) the word” 
(8:4) (evayyertfopwevor Tov Adyov). There are four more 
instances of the use of this cognate verb in the eighth 


12 DID 70 evaryyédLov 


chapter (8 : 12, 25, 35, 40); of these 8:40 is probably an 
anticipatory summary. In the first, third and fourth in- 
stances Philip is central: in the second the Samaritans. 
Philip is not an apostle but he “preaches (evayyerCopevo 
mept x.T.A.) concerning the Kingdom of God and the name 
of Jesus Christ” (8:12) to the Samaritans. When the 
apostles at Jerusalem learned that Samaria had accepted 
the word of God (Tov Adyov Tod Oeod) and the Samaritans 
had ‘only been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus,” 
they sent Peter and John down to them in order that they 
might receive the holy Spirit. Then they returned to 
Jerusalem bearing witness and “speaking the word of the 
Lord,” and they ‘evangelized’ (evayyedtGovro) many Sa- 
maritan villages. In 8:85 Philip “preached Jesus” to 
the traveler from Egypt (evayyedlcato a’t@ tov *Incodv) 
and also in 8:40 all the way even into Caesarea, he ‘evan- 
gelized’ many cities. The Gentiles are ‘evangelized’ by 
Philip who is not an apostle ! 

This term appears next in the story in a strange context 
(11:19 ff.), after Paul has been introduced again (paren- 
thetically) and converted and bundled off in the face of 
Hellenistic opposition to his home city of Tarsus, and 
when there followed peace for all the church in Palestine, 
and after the Cornelius-Peter episode. The author here 
takes us back to the days just after Stephen’s death, when 
‘those scattered”’ went to Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, 
speaking the word (Aadodvtes tov Adyor) to none except 
Jews; some, however, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, when 
they reached Antioch “spoke also to the Greeks, evay- 
yearCowevor Tov KUpLov “Incovv” (11:20, 21). When this 
news reaches Jerusalem, Barnabas is sent to Antioch and 
later goes to Tarsus and brings Paul back. Warned of a 
famine by a prophet from Jerusalem, a collection is made 
and sent to Jerusalem by Barnabas and Paul. (Cf. Gal. 
land 2.) After that stage of the story when Paul and 
Barnabas disagree concerning Peter’s understudy — Mark 
— and separate, this cognate verb does not occur again (ex- 


ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? Le 


cept soon in 16:10) in all the remaining chapters (excep- 
tion in the Mars Hill speech noted), although it is where 
Paul occupies the head-lines of every page of the story. 
The story closes with Paul in Rome after two years’ resi- 
dence there, “heralding («npvocwv) the Kingdom of God 
and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ.” 
The story had begun (1: 1-4) with a statement that the 
risen Lord was showing himself to the apostles, whom he 
had ‘‘selected for himself” (ovs é&eX€Earo) for forty days, 
and speaking of the things concerning the ‘“ Kingdom of 
God.” 

When Paul reached Rome, many Jews came to his quar- 
ters, and from morning till evening he bore witness to the 
“Kingdom of God,” falling back for support on Moses and 
the Prophets, — not on the promise to Abraham! (28 :23). 
(Compare Romans, fourth chapter.) We have seen that 
the evidence in Acts indicates quite definitely that the 
substantive To evayyédov is Pauline in origin and use — 
distinctively so, and now the partisan use of the cognate 
verb prompts us to infer that it had become so colored by 
Paul’s application of it to his distinctive message that the 
author of Acts overshot the mark when he tried to give it 
true ‘apostolic’ setting by wresting Jewish tradition and 
garbling the coinage of Paul. If this seems a hasty infer- 
ence, we need only to remind ourselves that the author of 
Acts wishes, in part, to prove that Peter had from the first 
the Gentile mind and that Paul had to the last a Jewish 
mind ! 

Is the use of the verb evayyer (Goat in the Third Gospel 
really attributable to Jesus? Although the substantive is 
missing, the cognate verb is found in Luke’s Gospel ten 
times. Since the author does not employ the substantive, 
is the use of its verbal cognate significant? Why does the 
author of Luke use the cognate verb, which, with one ex- 
ception — Matt. 11: 5 —the other Gospel writers avoid, or 
at least fail to employ? Why does he avoid the substan- 
tive and adopt the verb? Is it because the substantive 


14 DID 70 evaryyédtov 


originating with Paul had a specific content or connotation 
which he wished to avoid, and at the same time by using 
the verb discreetly he could show that the teaching of 
Jesus was the Christian message ? 

The cognate verb occurs first in 1:19 where Gabriel 
speaks a message of hope to Zacharias (kal amectadnv 
AaAhoat pos aé Kal evayyericacOal co Tadta). In 3:18 
it is used to describe the message of the Baptist (IIoAXAa 
pev ovv Kal érepa trapakadov evayyerileTro Tov racy). It is 
evident in these two instances that the cognate verb has a 
significance of its own. In the first case (1:19) the note 
of gladness is clear; but in the second instance an appeal 
to fear obtains; the Coming One, however, stands out dis- 
tinctly in the preceding verses (15-17). In 2:10 it is 
used to describe the angel’s message to the shepherds con- 
cerning the birth of Jesus — glad news for all ‘‘the People” 
(id0v yap evayyerifouar duiv yapav peyadnv k.T.r.). The 
author’s use of the cognate verb (8: 18, 2:10) is not Paul- 
ine in construction or scope (¢nfra). In 9:12 comment is 
made on the Mission of the Twelve extending the work of 
Jesus; all the remaining instances of usage refer directly 
to Jesus. In 4:18, 48, 7:22 and 16:16 the term is re- 
corded as on his lips. Deutero-Isaiah 61:1 is quoted in 
Luke 4:18 where it stands without a parallel in the other 
Gospels and is secondary. In 4:43 evayyerio@ai pe dei 
Tv Bactrelay Tod Geod is substituted for xa Kel knpvEw of 
Mark 1: 88 without distinct literary advantage. Perhaps 
the most significant use of the verb in Luke occurs in 7 : 22 
which has its parallel in Matt. 11:5. Here this cognate 
verb is ascribed to Jesus when he answers a query about 
his Messiahship, which a deputation brought from the im- 
prisoned Baptist. Is this Q material as used by both 
Matthew and Luke? (based on Deutero-Isaiah 61:1). 
Apart from any claim to Messiahship as possibly used by 
Jesus it is not improbable that he did use Isa. 61:1 as 
characterizing his aim and efforts. Even so, this fact may 
not be cited as evidence that Jesus surely meant more by 


ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 15 


it (LXX (?) or Aramaic equivalent) than lay in the mind 
of the author of Deutero-Isaiah, or that his disciples so 
understood it: much less that the substantive 76 evay- 
yédov came into use before Paul as a result of Jesus’ use 
of Deutero-Isaiah in point, as in some sense descriptive of 
his own message to the poor. Commenting on the Mission 
of the Twelve in 9:6 Luke says, éEepydpevor dé dinpyovto 
KaTa Tas K@pmas evayyedtCouevor for Mark’s (6:12) xal 
éEehOovres exnpvEav iva wetavomaiv; (compare Matt. 11:1), 
an adequate literary motive for the substitution is not evi- 
dent. In 16:16 Luke reverses the order in Matt. 11: 12, 
18, abbreviates, and adds azo tote 7» Bacthéta tov Oeod 
evayyeriletar Kal mas eis avtTnv Biagerar. Luke’s recension 
is secondary, and shows interest in a new era which is 
more universal. This addition azo rote x.7.r. stands 
awkwardly and insecurely before v. 17 where not one 
quirk — (horn—xepatov) of the Law falls to the ground. 
The theological interest of 16: 16b is obvious. ‘The verb 
occurs for the last time in Luke (20:1) where the ques- 
tion of Jesus’ authority is raised by priests, scribes and 
elders while he is teaching the people in the temple xai 
evayyertCouevov. Mark (11:27) says that he was “walk- 
ing about in the temple,” while Matthew tells us (21: 23) 
that he was “teaching” while in the temple. It can 
hardly be questioned that this addition is an interpretative 
redaction of the Petrine tradition of Mark 12:27. Luke’s 
use of the cognate verb suggests that he is trying to show, 
without using the distinctive Pauline term 70 evayyéXor, 
— that the things Jesus (and the Baptist) taught made up 
the Christian message. But we must inquire more closely 
whether the cognate verb has verbal synonyms in the New 
Testament and whether it is used as a synonym of the sub- 
stantive by any writer. 

The cognate verb occurs twenty-one times in Paul not 
including the pastorals (the substantive fifty ), fifteen times 
in Acts (substantive twice), never in the Johannine writ- 
ings (substantive also missing), ten times in Luke (sub- 


16 DID 70 evayyéALov 


stantive never), once in Matthew, never in Mark, twice in 
Hebrews, three times in I Peter and twice in Revelation. 
The verb xnpvcow appears sixteen times in Paul (exclud- 
ing the pastorals), eight times in Acts, thirty-two times 
in the Synoptic Gospels, but not in the Fourth, once in 
I Peter and once in Revelation. The verb catayyédA@ is 
found seven times in Paul, eleven times in Acts, but not 
in the Gospels. Is there deliberate preference shown in 
the use of these verbs? If so, on what ground? 

In three cases out of twenty-one where Paul uses the 
cognate verb it has the substantive as object (Gal. 1:11, 
TO evayyéArLov TO evayyertobev br’ éuod. I Cor. 15:1, To 
evayyéArtov 6 evnyyedtoapny viv. II Cor. 11:7, dtu dwpeav 
TO TOU Deovd evayyérLov einyyertoauny buiv;). ‘The context 
in each case shows that this duplication represents an 
effort to intensify and discriminate, and is not evidence 
that Paul regarded the cognate verb as lacking in specific 
content. In three other instances this verb carries a di- 
rect object (Gal. 1:16 avrov referring to Christ: 1: 23 
thy tiotty: Rom. 10:15 ayaéa in quotation). Also per- 
haps Eph. 3:8 (70 aveEvyactov mrrovTos Tod Xpiotov). 
Elsewhere when Paul uses this verb his 10 evayyéXcov 
seems to be intrinsic. 

In only three cases out of sixteen tere Paul uses «7- 
puvcow does it have “the gospel” as object (Gal. 2: 2, Col. 
1:23, I Thess. 2:9), but in eight instances where Paul 
employs «npvoow it has for its direct object words synony- 
mous, in part, with “the gospel” (once by contrast Gal. 
5:11). For example,— 70 phua tis rictews Rom. 10: 8; 
Xptotov éotavpwpévov I Cor. 1:23; Xpicrov Incodv xvpiov 
II Cor.4:5. Of the four remaining cases where Paul em- 
ploys «xnpvoow, in only one does he seem to use it as con- 
taining 70 evayyéduov. In Rom. 2:21 where it occurs in 
an illustration it has pu) «rémrrewv as its object. In Rom. 
10:14, 15 it anticipates 7@ evdayyeri@ of verse 16 and p7- 
patos Xptotov of verse 17. In it I Cor. 15:11 reaches 
back to 7 yapis tod Oeov ody éuol and also to 70 evayyédALov 


ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 17 


in verse 1ff. In I Cor. 9:27 xnptcow seems to stand 
alone, but certainly refers to mavta 6€ tro oud TO evay- 
yéAvov in verse 28. So that in truth, without exception, 
Knpvoow does not in Paul’s usage carry “the gospel” in 
itself, as is usually the case when he employs evayyer(Couat. 
In other words the substantive and its cognate verb in 
Paul are regarded as synonyms. Is this true of any other 
New Testament writer? 

In Acts evayyed (Cova is not self-sufficient in the sense 
that it contains in itself the meaning of the term 76 evay- 
yéduov. In eight cases an object (in the accusative) fol- 
lows it, which expresses content. These accusatives of 
content are not un-Pauline in character. The tov Xpiorov 
(5:42), tov Aoyov (8:4), Tov Kvpiov “Incody (11: 20), Tov 
Adyov Kupiov (11:35), Tov “Incobdv Kal THY avactaciy (17: 
18) may be cited as examples. But as necessary additions 
to complete the meaning of the cognate verb they consti- 
tute a departure from the usual literary style of Paul 
when he employs the verb. Once (8:12) the clause 
occurs “they believed Philip evayyertoudve rept THs Ba- 
otrelas ToD Geod x.7T.r.” But this is not an exception, for 
mepi introduces explanatory words. In the six remaining 
instances the verb carries as its direct object persons signi- 
fied by pronouns (duds 14:15, abrovs 16:10) and places, 
meaning people by metonymy (xwpuas 8:25, Tas modes 
maaas 8:40, tv modu éxeivnv 14: 21), and we may include 
kaxei (14:7), that is, that place. Of course it is implied 
that something was told in each case of person and place 
as direct object, but it is not obviously “the gospel.” For 
Paul does not make persons (one exception Gal. 1: 9 tuas) 
or places (II Cor. 10:16 with eds) the direct object of 
evayyertSouat. He uses duly six or seven times. In Acts 
the cognate verb is rather used as Paul employs «ypvcca, 
that is, without 76 evayyédcov as implicit content, that is 
to say, evayyeA‘Couas is not Pauline as used in Acts, nor is 
_«knpvoow in Acts employed as a synonym for Paul’s evay- 
yeriCouat. ‘The verb xcatayyéddAw occurs seven times in 


18 DID TO evaryyéALov 


Paul)( Rom: 1+8,\1 Cor, 2: 1,9: 14, 11:26, "Philo: 17,18, 
Col. 1:28) and in Acts eleven times and carries a direct 
object (passive form with subject) in both documents. It 
is employed somewhat as xnptcow by both authors, al- 
though the connotation of the content of the direct object, 
or subject when the passive form obtains, is not always 
identical. Only once is “the gospel” the direct object of 
KkatayyéAro in Paul (I Cor. 9:14) and never in Acts. It - 
has for its object in Acts, however, “the word of God” 
(18: 5), “the word of the Lord” (15: 36), but also “these 
days” (8:24). As we re-read I Cor. 9:14, we wonder 
what Paul meant by otras xal o xvpios diétakev tois 70 
evayyéAlov KatayyéXovotv. Does he mean to say that 
Jesus preached “the gospel”? ‘To what saying of Jesus 
does he refer? Evidently he is referring to the tradition 
reflected in Matt. 10:10 (d&tos yap o épyarns rhs tpodis 
avrov). Luke 10:7 has rod picOod for ths tpopis of the 
Mission of the Twelve. Paul is using this tradition as an 
illustration of a general principle—very old; ovrws indi- 
cates that it was a commonplace of Jewish temple econ- 
omy that the priests were to be supported by the gifts of 
worshipers whom they were serving. Here Paul means 
by “announcing the gospel” and “living by the gospel” 
nothing more specific than missionary effort and material 
provision for it. It does not imply that Jesus used the 
term “the gospel.” 

Paul does not use catayyédAw as he does evayyer(Souar 
which, as we have seen, usually carries in itself To evay- 
yédtov: while for the author of Acts catayyéAXA@ is em- 
ployed where we might expect evayyeAtGouas (for example 
in the speeches of Paul), and is a near synonym for the 
cognate verb, as used by this author. In Acts xnpvcoe is 
found eight times (8:5, 9:20, 10: 37,42, 15: 21, 19: 13, 
20:25, 28:31) always with a direct object (10:42 67 
x.T.r.). Usually their objects are different from those 
modifying xatayyéAX@ as used in Acts: for example 10:37 — 
the baptism which John preached (xnptaow): avtév= Moses 


ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 19 


in 15:31: “the kingdom” in 9:2, 20:25, 28:31. In- 
deed xnpvcow in Acts is less specific in selecting the char- 
acter of its company than xatayyéAdrw; less specific also 
than when Paul employs it, and Paul does not use «nptccw 
as a synonym for evayyerAtCouar. Acts does not provide a 
verbal synonym for the cognate verb as used by the apostle 
to the Gentiles. Luke uses evayyeA(fouwar ten times and 
Knpvoow nine times. Mark does not employ evayyerifo- 
pat, but knpvoow occurs twelve times. In only two, pos- 
sibly three, instances out of ten where Luke uses evay- 
yeriCouat does he substitute it for xnpvoow in Mark; in 
3:18 referring to the work of the Baptist = Mark 1:7(?), 
in 4:43= Mark 1: 88 and in 9:6=Mark6:12. In Luke 
20:1 Luke adds evayyer(Gouat where the parallels in Mark 
and Matthew do not have xnpvocw. The remaining six 
instances where Luke uses evayyer(Cowar have no parallel 
in Mark. It should be noted also, that Luke uses xnpioc 
in three parallels where Mark also has xnpvcoow, — Luke 
4:44=Mark 1:39, Luke 8:39=Mark 5: 20, Luke 9:2= 
Mark 3:14. Besides in Luke 8:1 we find «nptccwv xai 
evayyertCopevos THY Bacirelav Tod Geod, where they cannot 
be synonyms. ‘That is to say, that although Luke writes 
better Greek than Mark, he also thinks more discreetly 
than Mark. It is conceded that in 4:44 Luke may have 
used xnptoowv because he had written evayyertoacOat in 
4:43, where Mark in the parallels 1: 38, 39 uses xnptocw 
successively and that Luke 9: 6 is better Greek than Mark 
6:12, but it will probably be admitted that Adyar in Luke 
3:16 is substituted for éxjpuvccev in Mark 1:7, and that 
evayyertveto, Luke 3: 18, is an addition albeit explanatory 
in part, and that although a literary motive is not always 
entirely wanting in his use of these verbs, it is not variety 
of style but verity of idea that guides his pen. Luke does 
not substitute the cognate verb for xnptccev evayyéuov 
of Mark (found three times in Mark 1:14, 18:10, 14:9). 
‘Nor does he substitute the cognate verb for the substan- 
tive used without xyptcow in Mark 1:15, 8:35, 10:29. 


20 DID 70 evayyéAtov 


Nor yet does he substitute the cognate verb for «nptccw 
(always found with To evayyédtov as direct object) in 
Matthew. Matt. 4:23= Mark 1:29=Luke 4: 44 all em- 
ploying xnptoow but To evayyédwov, only found in Matthew. 
Matt. 9: 85= Mark 6: 6=Luke 10:1 ff. (or if Luke 8: 1 is 
a parallel, note that both xnptoow and evayyertfouar are 
used and connected by «al). Matt. 24:14= Mark 13:13 
=Luke 21:19. Matt. 26:13=Mark 14:9 and has no 
parallel in Luke. 

In the four cases where Matthew employs the substantive 
it is the object of «npvcow and with one exception (26: 
18) it is 76 evayyédov THs Bactrelas. In other connec- 
tions “the Kingdom” occurs forty-seven times. Matthew’s 
interest is Messianic. Evidently “the gospel” used alone 
did not suit his purpose, and evayyertfowae perhaps had 
come to signify too much for extended use by a Jewish 
writer who would make the Messiah the propounder of a 
new law. 

We have seen above (p. 7) that Mark’s use of 76 evay- 
yéAcov is not drawn from the Petrine tradition of Jesus’ 
life which he employs in sketching Jesus’ public career 
and that the term is not found in Q, but that it is very 
probably due to Pauline influence; yet that this term 70 
evayyéAuov is attributed to Jesus six times. We need to 
remind ourselves, however, that only once in Mark is Jesus 
reported to have preached the gospel xnptcow with Td 
evayyédwov 1: 14, although 16 evayyéAcov is preached in two 
other instances («npvyOfvat To evayyédvov 13:10, and «n- 
pvxOn To evayyéAvov 14:9), and in these two instances 
Pauline universalism is emphasized (editorial). Mark’s 
use of Knpvocw without To evayyéAtov calls for considera- 
tion. Why does Mark avoid the use of evayyertfonar 
which he must have known was used by Paul? Was it 
simply because «npvoow was a shorter word? Hardly, 
since his theological interest is patent. Possibly evay- 
yer (Couat had come to be a term of compromise as between 
Petrine and Pauline sympathizers. Often xnptvcow in 


ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 21 


Mark has a direct object where it cannot refer to to evay- 
yéXcov; for example, 1:4 where the Baptist is cnptocwv 
Barticpa petavoias, also 1:7 éxnpvacev Aéywv «.7.r.. 1:45 
where the leper proclaims his cure, cnptvocev moda Kal 
Siadnuifery Tov Aoyov, 5: 20 where the demoniac proclaims 
(xnpvoceyv) all that Jesus had done for him, 6:12 where 
the Twelve at the bidding of Jesus went out and preached 
repentance (éxjpvgav iva petavodow), 7:36 where the 
man who had been deaf and the bystanders announced his 
recovery (avTol madAXov treptacotepov exnpvocov). ‘Three 
cases of Mark’s use of xypvoow remain,—(1: 38, 39, 3: 
14), — 1:38 (va Kai éxet cnpv&w, 1:39 Kai HrAGev enptaoowy 
els TaS GUVaywyas K.T.A., 3:14 Kal (va arroaTéXAN avTodrs 
Knpvocetv. It may be inferred that Mark has 70 evayyedcov 
in mind as the object of «npvcow in these three cases on 
the ground that he employs it in this fashion in 1:14, 18: 
10 and 14:9, but we are certainly not warranted in con- 
cluding that when «npvccm is used without a direct object 
of content, To evayyédvov is contained in the verb as Paul 
usually employs evayyeAtComat. 

Luke’s use of the cognate verb (Third Gospel) can 
hardly be called Pauline. Luke reflects Pauline phrase- 
ology but not Pauline theology. Both the Third Gospel 
and the Acts are pro-Petrine at the expense of Paul. In 
1:19 it takes the accusative of the thing —the birth of 
the Baptist —and plainly does not refer to ‘‘the gospel”: 
it takes the same kind of accusative in 2:10 “a great joy” 
— the birth of the Messiah. Once tov daov is the object 
(3:18) (John the Baptist). Twice it is used with “the 
Kingdom of God” which is the object of the infinitive 
in 4:43 and subject in 16:16. ‘Twice it relates to the 
“poor,” quoted, evayyertoac@at mrwyois in 4:18 and 
mTTwVxoL evayyertCovTat in 7:22. We read in 8:1 that he 
was “heralding (xknptcowr) and proclaiming (evayyerifo- 
pevos) the Kingdom of God” (accusative of thing). In 
9:6 and 20:1 evayyeAtSoua appears in participial form 
without an object direct or indirect, but in the first in- 


22 DID TO evayyéALov 


stance it is immediately followed by «ai Oeparrevovtes and 
in the second it is immediately preceded by «ai which con- 
nects it with d:dacKovros avtov Tov Aaov, that is, it does 
not stand in these two cases as carrying its own substan- 
tival content which usually obtains in Paul’s use of this 
verb. 

The author of the Fourth Gospel may avoid the cognate 
verb for the same reason that he seems to avoid the sub- 
stantive (anti-doceticism). The fact, however, that he 
does not even employ catayyédAw or Knptoow though the 
latter term is frequently employed in the Synoptics, and 
both in Acts and Paul, suggests some additional reason or 
reasons. We may well remember that John is the Gospel 
of individuals and that conversation is the method of 
philosophy. 

Hebrews 4:2 follows Pauline usage, the verb in parti- 
cipial form standing without an object though assisted by 
the copulative verb; but o Adyos THs axons exeivovs refers 
back to evnyyeAtopevoe and reminds us of Rom. 10:16 and 
I Thess. 2:18. In 4:6 we find similar usage in the same 
setting. The phrase evayyéAuov at@uov evayyedioat occurs 
in Rev. 14: 6 — the fourth instance in the New Testament 
where the substantive appears as a cognate accusative, the 
other three (with the definite article) in Paul. In our 
study of the Synoptics and Acts the possibility of the 
Petrine origin of the term “the gospel” has repeatedly 
appeared. It has been noted that the substantive is found 
in I Peter 4:17. This alone would be scarcely note- 
worthy in the light of the highly probable dependence of 
this letter on Pauline writings where it occurs so many 
times. But when we find also that the cognate verb 
occurs three times in this writing our flagging interest is 
revived. After all the question is still before us— Was 
‘‘the gospel” originally a Petrine or a Pauline term? Did 
they both use it and mean different things? 

Our only reliable sources for the relations between Peter 
and Paul are the writings of Paul and Peter. But critical 


ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 23 


scholarship holds that II Peter is a second-century writing 
and I Peter, whoever the author may have been, shows 
marked dependence on acknowledged letters by Paul. 
The Petrine element in I Peter is somewhat difficult to 
designate with certainty, while the Petrine tradition in 
Acts 1-15 has been handled so freely that reconstruction 
only reaches early stages of probability. On the other 
hand, out of the extensive authentic correspondence of 
Paul only two letters mentioned Peter by name— Galatians 
and I Corinthians! The place to begin a study of the 
relations of Peter and Paul is Gal. 2:8 0 yap évepyjoas 
Ilétp@ eis atroctoAny TIS TeptToUAS eEvnpynoev Kal euol els TA 
éOvn «.T.r. The datives [lérpm and éwol are dativi com- 
modi and not governed by év- in the verb, which is not a 
pure compound. ‘This passage means, God who energized 
Peter unto apostleship to the Jews, energized me also unto 
apostleship to the Gentiles, rijs meprtouns = TeV TepiTeTUN- 
phevov by metonymy. Compare I Cor. 7:18 év axpoBvaria 
K.T.rX. Rom. 4:9 eri wepttouyv. Paul thus recognizes that 
God endued both Peter and himself. Does he imply that 
they differed only as to allocation of territory? Peter pre- 
ceded Paul chronologically. What did Peter call his 
message before and after Paul began his missionary efforts? 
Did Paul react to Peter and deepen the meaning of his 
name for the ‘Christian’ message, or did Peter react to 
Paul’s term and restrict it as to content? Or did Peter 
use another term? Does Paul imply in Galatians that 
Peter is to be identified in whole or in part with the Ju- 
daizing party? Paul was ‘all things to all men’ in peda- 
gogy and not in principle. It is fair to infer that the 
Judaizers were presenting an alternate “gospel” (Gal. 1: 
5-9). It must not be overlooked that Paul is irenic in 
Galatians in spite of his repeated phrase ava@eua éorw. 
This is patent in 2:9. In 2: 2-5 he clearly distinguishes 
between avtois (Peter et al.) and yevdaddérgous. He adds, 
however (v. 6), a76 6€ tev SoxotvtTwyr eival T1,—o7Tro0t0l TroTeE 
hoav ovoév por Stadeper* mpdowrroy o eds avOpwrrov ov 


24 DID TO evaryyédtov 


AapPBaver—épuol yap of Soxodvtes ovdev mrpocavéevto. ‘This 
broken sentence is equivocal. Asa continuation of verse 5 
it is adversative and explanatory. It is perhaps best ren- 
dered in substance: ‘But from those who were reckoned 
as leaders — what they were I care not —I received noth- 
ing. These leaders, I repeat, had nothing to give to me.” 
‘These leaders* included Peter. They are members of a 
private conference—not a court, of which Paul is also a 
member and on his own volition. Peter gives nothing to 
Paul but the right hand of fellowship! But later (verse 
11) when Peter was in Antioch his practice did not con- 
form to his spirit shown at this conference. Here he 
swerves from the truth of “the gospel” in the field of 
fellowship, and Paul stands against him openly. Evi- 
dently “the gospel” was not as thoroughgoing with Peter 
as with Paul. Was Peter’s theory at the Jerusalem con- 
ference a concession, and did his practice there conform 
to it? Did Paul contribute anything to Peter at this con- 
ference? Why had Peter-gone to Antioch? Was he “all 
things to all men” until certain from his colleagues at 
Jerusalem also arrived? According to Paul’s letters he 
meets Peter three times. His gospel is set before he goes 
to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter. See Gal. 1: 
11,12, “The gospel preached by me is not of human origin, 
for I did not receive it through tradition by man nor was 
I taught it”? (denies instruction as the method): vv. 16,17 
— “forthwith instead of conferring with flesh or blood,— 
I did not go to Jerusalem to those who were apostles be- 
fore me,— I went away into Arabia,” then when he next 
talks with Peter he learns nothing, and lastly at Antioch 
Peter fails in what he had seemed to concede to Paul at 
their second meeting! According to Paul, in respect to 
“the gospel,’ dependence is on the part of Peter and not 
on the part of Paul. Apart from the influence of Paul, 
Peter shows no more friendly interest in the Gentiles than 
the ‘rest of the apostles.” ‘And Peter followed afar off!” 
Paul mentions Cephas in I Corinthians where his name is 


ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 25 


a talisman for division (1:12, 3:22). Perhaps in every 
case where Paul uses 7 Baovdeda in I Corinthians (4: 20, 
6:9,10, 15: 24,50) he is quoting (ironically) his oppo- 
nents who are using this term in opposition to 70 evay- 
yédov. Paul feels obliged to defend his apostleship and 
“the gospel” not only in Galatians but in other letters. 
These partisans of Peter may be those to whom Paul re- 
fers in II Cor. 11: 13-15, masquerading as apostles of 
Christ (weracynpatilomevoe els atrootdéXous Xpicrov) but 
are in reality ministers of Satan. (ov dvaxovos avtov k.T.X. ) 
Pauline Mark makes Jesus call Peter Satan (Mark 8: 33 
vTaye oriaw pov, catava). Compare the use of peteryn- 
patito in I Cor. 4:6, II Cor. 11:13 ff. (Compare also 
eTa- in compound in Gal. 1: 6, 7.) 

To whom does Paul refer in Gal. 1: 7 as rapacoovtes the 
Galatian ‘Christians’ and as @éNovtes petaotpérat TO evay- 
yédtov? (Shaking you and desiring to turn ‘the gospel” 
around so as to make it face toward Jerusalem.) That 
they were legalists is plain. It is also implied that they 
called their teaching a gospel, perhaps, “ érepov evayyéduov.” 
Primacy is not suggested. Is not the opposite assumed ? 
Verses 8 and 9 imply that high authority is claimed for 
this modification or substitute. He does not call them 
“false brethren,” but classes them with angels and himself. 
Paul divides his benediction in Gal. 6: 16, first upon those 
who hold to “the gospel” (xavéw) “éipnvnv én’ avtovs,” 
and then adds “xai édeos cal émt tov "Iopanr Tov Geov.” 
By “Israel of God” he means those who are preaching 
érepov evayyédvov in Galatia (1:6). Compare trav éxxr- 
atav tov Oeov of 1:13. There is a tradition embodied in 
Acts (15:1) that “some having gone down to Antioch 
from Judea were teaching the brethren that if they were 
not circumcised, according to the custom of Moses, they 
could not be saved.” It is also related that Jews from 
Antioch and Iconium went to Lystra, won the crowd, and 
. Paul was stoned. These have the ring of sound tradition. 
In the same treatise mention is made that Paul circumcised 


26 DID TO evayyéAtov 


Timothy on account of local Jews at Lystra and Derbe 
(16:8), and that “Jews from Asia” (21: 27) led the op- 
position to Paul when he was in Jerusalem for the last 
time, after he had spent days purifying himself as an 
orthodox Jew. Here the editor protests too much! His 
apologetic is so overdone that it proves the opposite! The 
real inference from Acts is that opposition to Paul headed 
up in Jerusalem. Paul’s polite phrase, when speaking of 
Peter Gal. 2:12 tivas azro laxw@Bou, indicates the mind of 
‘‘the pillars” toward his way of salvation. The spell of 
his speech at the conference soon lost its virility. Why 
is Peter dropped after Acts 15? If Peter had been in 
Jerusalem when Paul made his last visit (Acts 21) he 
would have appeared particeps criminis. In Rom. 15: 31 
Paul requests his readers to pray, — “to agonize with him 
in prayer,” that he may be delivered azo tev arrevBovvTwr 
év Ty ‘lovdaia,— (not the Asiatic Jews of Acts 21:27) and 
that his stewardship may be acceptable to the saints in 
Jerusalem. Paul’s use of ame@ém always has a Jewish 
setting or reference as affecting “the gospel.” Here 
(Rom. 15:31) it is from the ‘unpersuaded’ Judeans that 
he expects opposition. Soul-stirring prayers are also asked 
that the collection he bears to the saints may be gladly re- 
ceived! What is the force of zap’ o not av7/ in Gal.1:8 
and 9? It means “unconsonant to that which,” that is, 
legalism (opponents) v. 8; and unconsonant to anti-legal- 
ism (my gospel) in v. 9,— Pillars against Paul! In Gal. 
1:10 it is implied that Paul’s opponents had accused him 
of antinomianism in the liberty “the gospel” brought, to 
which he replies that his obedience is that of a bond- 
servant of Christ; and in 2: 15-21 after telling of his 
rebuke of Peter he expounds this principle, refusing to 
“rebuild what he had demolished,” and to “invalidate the 
grace of Christ.” 

On the evidence of Paul, that Peter used ‘the gospel” 
before he met the Tarsian is highly improbable; that he 
used the term at the Conference as applied to the message 


ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 27 


of Paul is not unlikely, and that it was used by Peter’s 
colleagues with modified meaning as an antidote to Paul’s 
‘heresy’ is almost certain. 

When we turn to the Petrine element in Acts 1-15 we 
find no evidence that Peter called his message ‘the gospel.” 
As noted, the term does not appear until 15: 7, where it is 
said to be used by Peter at Jerusalem where he is pleading 
at the Council(!), after a long discussion, for an official 
recognition of Paul, and to this James agrees! Comment 
is superfluous; this setting settles it, even if it were not 
balanced by letting Paul use the term (on his way to Jeru- 
salem) in 20: 24. Even the cognate verb evayyerifomat is 
not used by the author of Acts to describe the work of 
Peter, then only as one of “the apostles,” except in 5: 42, 
8:25 (Peter associated with John): and only once is 
Peter reported to have used the term (10: 86), and here 
it is based on Deutero-Isaiah 52:7 (LXX) modes eday- 
yertCouevou axony eipnvns, or on Rom. 10:15 (teatus recep- 
tus) which quotation follows ov« éotiv mpocwrornpTns oO 
Geos from Deut. 10:17 or I Sam. 16: 7, or Rom. 2:11, and 
this when the author of Acts is grooming Peter for his 
race to the Gentiles ! 

It is against this background provided by Galatians and 
Acts that we must study I Peter. Pursuant to the find- 
ings of modern scholarship it is assumed that I Peter de- 
pends on Paul to a considerable degree. It is possible, 
however, that we may find evidence in the Petrine element 
of the use of the cognate verb and even the substantive. 
Much depends on how far we can really segregate the 
Petrine and Pauline elements on other grounds. ‘The 
Petrine speeches early in Acts incorporate phrases not un- 
like some used in I Peter; for example, Acts 5:41 and 
I Peter 4: 14,16, but both may be echoes of common prim- 
itive tradition. Luke and Silvanus were companions of 
Paul; yet Petrine influence is evident in Acts, and Sil- 
vanus was, according to tradition, a companion of Peter, 
and may have been the diarist in Acts. Conceding for 


28 DID TO evayyédLov 


the sake of argument that I Peter is in substance Petrine 
by the hand of Silvanus (5: 12), we take up I Peter 1:19, 
1:25 and 4:6 where evayyedifGouar is employed, 3:19 
where «npvoow is found, and look again at T@ Tov Peod evay- 
yedto in 4:17. The indubitable dependence of I Peter on 
Paul’s writings fosters cautious inference when we note 
that the cognate verb has vuas as direct object in 1:12, 
although similar usage only occurs once in Paul (Gal. 1: 9) 
and is never followed by év rvevpatt adyiw atoctarevtt amr’ 
ovpavod. ‘This use of the cognate verb with persons as 
direct object, however, is found in Acts 14:15 das and 
in 16: 10 (adrovs). 

In 1:25 this verb is followed by es twas, while in 
II Cor. 10:16 we have els ra brrepéxeva tov evayyéXLov. 
In Acts (8:12) it has wepé. In both of these cases the 
construction has precedent in Paul, but does not follow 
general usage in his epistles. In 4:6 we find kai vexpois 
evayyerioOn, which is Pauline in that the verb contains 
the substantive in itself; but the dependent clause intro- 
duced by fva is not so clearly so, even though it sets cdp£ 
over against mwvevya. The necrology of the verse is not a 
part of the theology of Paul. In 3:19 xnptaocw has no 
direct object expressed, which is not the most common 
usage of Paul; yet Paul so employs this verb several times 
(see above). The substantive phrase r@ Tod Qeod evay- 
yerio (I Peter 4:17) is frequently found in Paul, while 
in Acts 15:7 we have tov Adyov Tod evayyeriov and TO evay- 
yédov THS yapitos Tov Beod in 20:24. *ArrecOéw occurs in 
Paul five times, in Acts twice, in I Peter four times; of 
these with dative of person or of thing Rom. 2:8, 11:30 ff., 
Rom. 15:81; and I Peter 3:20, but in these eleven in- 
stances only once with T@. . . evayyediw (I Peter 4:17). 
It is a fair inference that I Peter 4:17 reflects Rom. 2: 8, 
10:16, 21. In the instances where Paul uses amebém he 
is concerned with his message, 76 evayyédvov. In I Peter, 
however, it is used in reference to T@ Ady (referring to 
the scriptures) (2:8), 7@ Aoy@ referring to the Christian 


ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 29 


message (3:2), and to the message of Enoch in the under- 
world (8: 20)—here with knpvcow. It should be observed 
in this connection that the (Hellenistic) word ampocwo- 
AnumrTws occurs only in I Peter 1:17, rpocwrornprros only 
in Acts 10: 34, and wpocwrodAnuyia in Rom. 2:11, Eph. 
6:1, Col. 3:25 and the plural in James 2:1; and that it 
is reasonable to infer that I Peter, Acts and James react 
to Paul. The setting in Acts (10th chapter) indicates 
that the speech of Peter is an editorial composition and 
hence may not be cited as a Petrine parallel of I Peter 1:17 
— the hand is that of Peter but the voice is that of Paul. 

If we are right in the conviction that in I Peter, an un- 
lettered fisherman’s message is recorded by an interpreter, 
once a companion of Paul, and perhaps after Peter’s death, 
the variations in style from Paul, even when dependent 
on him for thought, are fully accounted for. So that the 
use of the substantive and cognate verb in I Peter is very 
probably secondary. 

It is almost certain therefore, in view of the New Testa-> 
mént facts considered, that the term 70 evaryy¢dvov was not 
used by Jésus, and that it did not originate with Peter 
but with Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles.. This does not — 
mean so far forth that the message of Jesus was necessarily 
different from that of Paul, nor does it minimize the mis- 
sionary leadership of Peter in Palestine. The content of 
the message of Jesus, its likeness or unlikeness to that 
which the ‘apostles’ and Paul preached, even the content 
of Paul’s message and that of Peter, except as bearing on 
the origin of the term ‘‘the gospel,’ do not lie within the 
scope of this study. 

Whether New Testament writers were warranted in 
their extension of the term invites further consideration. 
Is the current distinction between the “gospel of Jesus” 
and the “gospel about Jesus,’ even though not historically 
accurate, logically sound? It is possible that the messages 
of Paul and Jesus had more in common, even though the 
Synoptic Sources are not explicit on many points, as are 


30 DID TO evayyéAlovy ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 


the letters of Paul, than their use of 70 evayyédsov or lack 
of use, might seem to indicate. What Paul meant by 
To evayyéAvov and its relation to Jesus are reserved for 
further discussion. 


phe VB 


: NS Pas, ee 





Date Due 








ok SUES AS ES 








om 





i 


